4 ms·

There is a third option: most people work a menial, part-time job (not "part-time", but 20 hours a week, tops) that is paid a decent full-time wage, which suppo

by bsanr2 5y ago

There is a third option: most people work a menial, part-time job (not "part-time", but 20 hours a week, tops) that is paid a decent full-time wage, which supports their aspirational contribution to society - their "creative" or "professional" work. I know, qué horror that a world-class engineer, architect, or artist would not be able to devote themselves fully to their craft. However, the truth is that most of us are not world-class, and get maybe 4 hours of good, intensive professional work done a day - work, as you know, that can be done in no small proportion from a home office, no "second commute" required. Even among the best of the best, it is acknowledged that only a few are able to nose -> grindstone ad nauseum (and often to just that - see the recent, untimely passing of infamously workaholic manga artist Kentaro Miura). So, you do your client meetings, work on your highly-technical project, and after lunch, head to your retail sales job, or food service, or customer support, which you work for ~4 hours. This engenders humility and community engagement, while also flooding those spaces with workers so that no one employee has to put in a 12-hour shift (increasing the quality of their work and decreasing the risk of injury). And everyone gets paid enough to live on. I understand that this dashes the paradigm of expertise or other specialized quality (like social connections...) deciding one's level of income, but it has always confused me that we pay LESS money to do the things people DON'T want to do. Most professionals and academics don't enter their fields for the high pay; aside from the necessity of meeting material needs (including student loan payments), it seems that the primary drivers of entrance into and achievement in such careers are intellectual interest and social prestige. Perhaps our attitude to compensation should reflect these truths. It means giving up the privileges and structures we've heretofore considered indelible, certainly, but it solves a lot of the problems mentioned above.

zozbot234 5y ago
> Most professionals and academics don't enter their fields for the high pay Those careers still have to pay enough to compensate for the effort involved in acquiring the relevant skills. This is the main limiting factor to labor supply in these fields, and also a reason why putting one's "nose to the grindstone" once working in the field may actually be efficient. Even accounting for the fact that some or even most of this effort may not be as "good, intensive or professional" as the first few hours in the workday, it might nonetheless be more socially beneficial than merely working some generic, unskilled job. (In fact, since one of the factors behind wages is the inconvenience of the marginal unit of work, we also shouldn't be surprised that pay can be high even though on average one might be willing to work for less!)
- bsanr2 5y ago
  >Those careers still have to pay enough to compensate for the effort involved in acquiring the relevant skills. Do they? The effort in acquiring those skills goes to the desire to be proficient and do a job well, which is independent of compensation when needs have been previously fulfilled. You might speak about the material costs of training, but that's more of an institutional issue; the instructors, who likewise already have their needs met, aren't an added cost. Anecdotally, I can speak to the willingness I would have to train for a tehnical profession, without compensation, assuming that my basic needs were met. Like everyone else, I'd be spending 4ish hours fulfilling some social or business need, so it's not a free ride. After training, if the institution hasn't covered the cost of materials/facilities/etc, then that becomes an issue for which extra compensation might be required, but the ballooning administrative and personnel costs that drive the rising price of post-secondary education in this country are rendered moot. I want to push back a bit, also: the limiting factor to supply in many professional fields are often artificially narrow pipelines that wash out a number of candidates who would be competent. The ones who get through face the issue of there being a shortage of credentialed practitioners, which drives up compensation but also workplace stress, abuse, and error. These aren't open markets to begin with.

by bsanr2 5y ago

zozbot234 5y ago

> Most professionals and academics don't enter their fields for the high pay Those careers still have to pay enough to compensate for the effort involved in acquiring the relevant skills. This is the main limiting factor to labor supply in these fields, and also a reason why putting one's "nose to the grindstone" once working in the field may actually be efficient. Even accounting for the fact that some or even most of this effort may not be as "good, intensive or professional" as the first few hours in the workday, it might nonetheless be more socially beneficial than merely working some generic, unskilled job. (In fact, since one of the factors behind wages is the inconvenience of the marginal unit of work, we also shouldn't be surprised that pay can be high even though on average one might be willing to work for less!)

bsanr2 5y ago
>Those careers still have to pay enough to compensate for the effort involved in acquiring the relevant skills. Do they? The effort in acquiring those skills goes to the desire to be proficient and do a job well, which is independent of compensation when needs have been previously fulfilled. You might speak about the material costs of training, but that's more of an institutional issue; the instructors, who likewise already have their needs met, aren't an added cost. Anecdotally, I can speak to the willingness I would have to train for a tehnical profession, without compensation, assuming that my basic needs were met. Like everyone else, I'd be spending 4ish hours fulfilling some social or business need, so it's not a free ride. After training, if the institution hasn't covered the cost of materials/facilities/etc, then that becomes an issue for which extra compensation might be required, but the ballooning administrative and personnel costs that drive the rising price of post-secondary education in this country are rendered moot. I want to push back a bit, also: the limiting factor to supply in many professional fields are often artificially narrow pipelines that wash out a number of candidates who would be competent. The ones who get through face the issue of there being a shortage of credentialed practitioners, which drives up compensation but also workplace stress, abuse, and error. These aren't open markets to begin with.